I never could find what kind of workouts "the method" involved other than just slowing down to a Z2 HR. I've been doing the vast majority of my running in the recommended range the past few months. Looking at my times / HR's now vs the past few years it seems I'm consistently 3-5 bpm lower than before at the same (maybe slightly faster, 3-5 sec) pace. So I *think* it's paying off.

I decided to slow down this season after I saw that a buddy (age 47) was running a sustained mid 7 pace at about 145 bpm. I asked him how and he said all of his training had been by HR.

Can you describe what you mean by the Maffetone method?

I believe there is a lot of confusion between what it actually is and what people think it is. It is not running zone 1 or 2 all of the time.

jaretj

The short answer is; 180-age= target heart rate. There's a bit more to it, but that's the jist of it.

I read his book at the end of July and have generally been following the method for my running in August. I don't buy into the precise formula he prescribes for determining max aerobic heart rate, but it does turn out that the formula predicts mine pretty well (143). I've been running 6 days/week the past month with nearly all of them averaging 143 or lower HR. I have been pretty disciplined about this but not to the point of disallowing me going over 143 (I just try to average it). I will walk up hills though to keep my HR under 150. What I can say so far is that I've been able to run 40 miles per week for the first time ever without injury. I'm pretty sure my endurance and durability are much better but far too early to speak of performance improvements.

Also, I had begun following the barryp plan at the beginning of May this year, so I'd already started 6 runs/week, all easy runs, 3:2:1 pattern, etc. The only modification I made for August is that my easy runs became even easier. In May and June my pace was 8:00-8:30 and HR typically 150. By July I'd demonstrated performance improvement by being able to run 7:30-8:00 with similar 150 HR. Now I'm running 8:30-9:00 pace with HR between 137 and 143.

Prior to May, I'd considered running 8:30 and slower pace to be ridiculous. It seemed slow as a snail. I felt awkward running at that slow pace. If I wasn't breathing hard and feeling pain I didn't think it was doing anything for me. I also regularly got injured running. My attitude has now completely changed. My running form at 8:30-9:30 pace is far better. I love being able to run daily. I love being able to run 10 miles and not really hurt at all.

Even better, I have proven that such training can lead to fast race results. There should be no concern that even doing 100% of training runs at slower paces will somehow teach you to not be able to run fast in races. Since May, I've done a 6:48 paced 10k in an Oly tri, a 5:53 paced open 5k, and a 7:43 paced half marathon in a 70.3. These are all PRs for me.

So in summary, I'm a big believer in daily running and 80%+ of running being at aerobic pace (ie normal breathing).

Yes. I started it 18 years ago. It made sense then, it makes sense now. My results were lower body fat, lower weight, improved endurance and strength, and greater speed. Went from a middle pack guy to placing in my AG consistently which took about 3 full years for that to happen. But back then it was the full Maffetone plan: the 40/30/30 nutrition plan, the training methods, and the non-training lifestyle (recovery, meditation, etc.).

I still subscribe to his newsletter/blog.

When it comes to running, I think it works if people do lots and lots of volume and have enough running efficiency for aerobic development to correspond to significant speed increases. In other words, I really don't agree with the basic MAF (all runs at 180-age or below) for almost all runners. MAF plus lots of strides and short intervals would probably be the best of both worlds for most people!

---

------
David Roche
Some Work, All Play podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/...ll-play/id1521532868
Coaching: https://swaprunning.com/

Similar boat.
I do believe that an increase in % of time at base is highly beneficial for many if not most athletes.
However, as with most "extremes", moderation is prudent. More of a Seiler method than Maffetone

- Majority of activity at low intensity.
- some activity at high intensity.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

"So in summary, I'm a big believer in daily running and 80%+ of running being at aerobic pace (ie normal breathing)."

This sounds spot on.

Here is a thread about it from about 2 months ago:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

---

"Just don’t abandon everything you’ve ever learned because of something someone said on the internet." - Eric McGinnis

mark allen was probably the main elite proponent of it, back in the day. he had . . . some success.

as hickory mentioned, i think the 'full maff' is a whole lifestyle package; the express version is to watch your HR like a hawk and do lots of very light aerobic work until your body just loves burning fat.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Mike Pigg and Collen Cannon(?) also utilized this.